Perhaps the most frequent method use to prevent conception is withdrawal before the ejaculation of semen.  While this is most injurious to the husband—­ debility, nervous prostration, and even paralysis are said to ensue—­ the health of the wife also suffers.  If, this interrupted sexual congress is continued for years, there develop gradual nervous disturbances on both sides, and a serious disease of the uterus makes itself felt.  The generative organs become engorged with blood, but are not permitted to enjoy relaxation consequent upon the full completion of the act.  This engorgement may lead to undue local nutrition, and diffuse growth and proliferation of the connective tissue may take place.  Hence the uterine walls become dense and thickened and the nerves compressed.  Of course, pain and tenderness and a sense of bearing down will be the result.  Flexions and versions may be consequent upon the engorgement.  The nerves become shattered, and the woman will be fortunate if she contracts no serious womb trouble.

“It is strange,” says John Stuart Mill, “that intemperance in drink or any other appetite, should be condemned so readily, but that incontinence in this respect should always meet not only with indulgence, but with praise.  Little improvement can be expected in morality until the producing of too large families is regarded with the same feeling as drunkenness, or any other physical excess.”

Sismondi writes:  “When our true duties toward those whom we give life are not obscured in the name of a sacred authority, no man will have more children than he can properly bring up.  If a woman has a right to decide any question it is how many children she should bear.  Whenever it becomes unwise that the family should be increased, justice and humanity require that the husband should impose on himself the same restraint which is submitted to by the unmarried.”

In the opinion of Dr. Edward Reich, it is very much to be wished that the function of conception should be placed under the domain of the will.  But the strongest appeal has been made for the sake of morality itself; namely, to prevent the crime of abortion.  Dr. Raciborski, of Paris, took the position that the prevention of offspring to a certain extent is not only legitimate, but it is to be recommended as a means of public good.

Continence, self-control, and a willingness to deny himself—­ that is what is required of the husband.  But suffering women assure us that this will not suffice; that men refuse to restrain themselves; that it leads to loss of domestic happiness, to illegitimate amours; or that it is injurious physically and mentally; that, in short, such advice is useless because it is impracticable.

Dr. Napheys writes:  “Is it amiss to hope that science will find resources, simple and certain, which will enable a woman to let reason and sound judgment, not blind passions, control the increase of her family?”